By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgment dated 04.03.2005 delivered by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, in Complaint ULP No. 11 of 2003. Petitioner No.1 before this Court is the institution which runs B.N. Engineering College and Petitioner No.2 is the Principal of that College. Respondents No. 2 & 3 before this Court filed that Complaint before the Industrial Court under items 5 & 9 of Scheduled IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as MRTU & PULP Act), contending violation of equal pay for equal work, shortly stated, they claimed salary in pay scale as was being paid to two male sweepers. By the impugned judgment, the Industrial Court has directed the petitioners to pay them salary in pay scale of Rs.750940 accordingly with arrears from 07.02.2003.

2. The facts are not much in dispute. The husbands of both the complainants were earlier in employment of the petitioners and after their death, the petitioners appointed the complainants on consolidated salary mentioning that their appointment is purely temporary. The appointment orders are signed by the Principal i.e. Petitioner No.2. The Complainant No.1 – Chandrabai came to be appointed on 10.11.1995 while Complainant No.2 has been appointed on 12.09.2000. They filed above mentioned ULP Complaint on 30.01.2003 pointing out that they have been given employment on compassionate ground and though they are working for full eight hours i.e. between 8 AM to 12 AM and from 2 PM to 6 PM, they were being paid consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/- per month. Their work was of cleaning toilets, sweeping etc. in Hostel for Girls. They pointed out that one Shri Shriram Tak and Deepak Tak were working in Boys Hostel and doing same work but they were receiving their salary in the pay scale of Rs.750940. They further pointed out that their deceased husbands were permanent employees working as sweepers in hostel and in college respectively. This complaint was opposed by the petitioners by filing their reply. They contended that the work was only for four hours per day and the comparison with Shri Shriram Tak and Deepak Tak was not legally permissible. They pointed out that both male sweepers were working in hostels run by Respondent No.2 i.e. Petitioner No.2 and they had no connection or concern with petitioner No.1. It was further argued that as the appointment and terms and conditions were accepted by the complainants, their grievance of unfair labour practice was unsustainable.

3. In this back ground, after perusal of evidence led by the parties and after hearing respective arguments, the Industrial Court found that the complainants established that they were engaged in service on compassionate ground and they were entitled to time scale pay.

4. I have heard Shri Gordey with Mrs. Raskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Khade, learned AGP for respondent No.1. Nobody has appeared for respondents No. 2 & 3. There was no appearance for them even yesterday.

5. Shri Gordey, learned counsel has contended that the appointment orders issued by Petitioner No.2 reveal that the appointment was in purely temporary capacity and hence the question of extending to complainants pay scale was not involved in the matter at all. He points out that Shriram Tak and Deepak Tak were male sweepers working in Boys hostel and as they were regular/ permanent in service, salary in pay scale was being paid to them. According to him, burden was upon the complainants to show their entitlement to same pay scale and as that burden has not been discharged, the impugned judgment delivered by the Industrial Court is unsustainable. He has invited attention of the Court to respective pleadings, evidence on record and to the impugned judgment. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in